|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,477 Year: 3,734/9,624 Month: 605/974 Week: 218/276 Day: 58/34 Hour: 1/3 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)  Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Message 1:
Faith in Message 1 writes: Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times, it isn't a recent idea concocted in response to evolutionary theory as some seem to think. On the contrary, the Wikipedia article on Christian fundamentalism says it can trace its roots back to 19th century evangelical differences between north and south concerning Darwinism and higher criticism, finally resulting in a split in the 1920's from which fundamentalism sprung and whose foundation was a series of essays published a decade earlier called The Fundamentals.
Here is a pretty thorough declaration of Bible inerrancy:
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition: They affirm and deny a lot of things but provide scant support for their affirmations and denials. The Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation section describes a multiplicity of ways that the inerrant Bible is errant. It calls the Bible a "human production" written from the perspective of the author. When precision was not a goal it was "no error not to have achieved it." It also says:
quote: In other words, the Bible is inerrant not by modern standards but by whatever they want to claim were the standards of nearly 2000 years ago. It later says that "God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture," and acknowledges "that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free." It also says that "no translation is or can be perfect," before declaring without evidence how excellent are the English translations. After this enumeration of sources of error it then refers to "our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth." Contradictory much?
This is our foundation. No, this is your declaration. Your foundation is the excuses you make for the errors. Message 2:
Science is wonderful and does not contradict the Bible. Evolution is false science. The Bible can't even avoid contradicting itself, let alone science. It would be more accurate to say that any resemblance between religion and science is purely coincidental.
God created creatures to "evolve" -- vary in wonderful ways -- only within their Kind, but not from one Kind or Species to another. This is very clear from the Bible for those who know the Bible is God's inerrant word. Reading the Bible does make some things about it very clear, but inerrant isn't one of them.
I haven't read all of creation's posts but I doubt he is saying anything at all against science as such since Christians strongly affirm true science,... That would be "true science" as in they pick and choose which science they accept based on their religious beliefs.
True science is a gift from God... Then glory to God, who seems disproportionately generous in blessing atheistic scientists with the greatest insights.
...and it HAS given us longer and healthier lives, but evolutionary theory has given us absolutely nothing of use. Zip, nada. Independent of your silly assertion, you do realize, I hope, that practical utility isn't required for validity. Message 8:
Augustine was all over the place on some subjects. He's great on salvation by faith... One can find whatever one likes in the Bible, and Augustine did, arguing both ways in Chapter 20 of On Grace and Free Will, first quoting Ephesians 2:8 that "By grace are you saved through faith", then concluding with Matthew 16:27 that God "shall reward every man according to his works."
...but not so great on science. One should probably demonstrate at least a modicum of competence on a subject, especially one so vast, before venturing an opinion. St. Augustine has been judged insightful by countless generations, while your own plaudits have come exclusively from yourself.
I'm going with the statement on inerrancy which declares that the Bible is true on every subject it addresses,... Yes, of course you are.
These are the historical sciences that can't be proved as the hard sciences can be, because they reach back to events that can't be verified in themselves. You mean like the events recounted in the Bible, which you hold true on the flimsy grounds that you've declared them true, unlike real science that relies upon evidence, not declarations.
Wherever there are some claims that do appear to contradict the Bible, such as the tree rings, as the Statement on Inerrancy says, we trust that they will eventually be explained in accordance with the scripture. That's just something you believe without evidence will happen one day, not something that "stands against all objections" (that's from your thread title, in case you've forgotten).
Just a couple of thoughts. When you read the Sermon on the Mount it is clear that Jesus corrects as erroneous parts of the OT.
Not according to my theology. But your theology has only stood against all objections in your own mind.
Stoning to death was the way the death penalty was executed in those days. So what is heretical is your insistence that the Scripture is wrong and that those acts are evil. You are the one calling good evil and evil good, not I. So the death penalty is good? And stoning to death as a means of carrying out the death penalty is good? Message 14:
Scripture isn't geocentric. It doesn't say anything clear about such things at all. That's your uninformed opinion. To quote Dr Adequate quoting the court, which you seem so quickly to have forgotten:
quote: Moving on:
Most of my arguments are based on my own completely original observations of geological information, in most cases without referring at all to the Bible or Morris or anything except the physical information. That is readily apparent. Message 15:
The Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is aimed at capturing the biblical understanding of believers back to the beginning. Sure, the beginning of the 20th century. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
I stopped reading this thread when it got closed, so I'm just now seeing your three replies to my Message 35. The discussion has probably moved on from what was being discussed a little over a week ago, but since I've got a moment I'll reply to your messages now.
Message 36:
Faith writes: Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times, it isn't a recent idea concocted in response to evolutionary theory as some seem to think. On the contrary, the Wikipedia article on Christian fundamentalism says it can trace its roots back to 19th century evangelical differences between north and south concerning Darwinism and higher criticism, finally resulting in a split in the 1920's from which fundamentalism sprung and whose foundation was a series of essays published a decade earlier called The Fundamentals.Bible inerrancy is not synonymous with Fundamentalism, which is what you seem to be claiming. Then you would seem to be wrong about what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong to say that, "Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times." It doesn't. At most it goes back to the latter half of the 19th century. If you think Biblical inerrancy was a tenet of any significant sects of Christianity then tell us about them. Even Martin Luther argued that Bible passages must be tested to determine whether they were the true word of God, see, for example, Reformers Did Not Affirm Inerrancy.
The "fundamentalist" side of the schism was an attempt to enshrine the basic principles of the faith as understood from the beginning, in opposition to the new liberal/modernist revisionism. It was a "new" movement only in the sense that modernism had provoked a restatement of the fundamentals in that new context, but the fundamentals themselves were, well, fundamentals, foundational principles of the Christian faith, not new in any sense at all. What was new was modernism and liberalism. You say it, but you cannot show it. Message 39:
Just as you get confused about what fundamentalism is in relation to biblical inerrancy you go on with even more confusions that I guess I have the job of sorting out. If you're going to begin casting out personal accusations of confusion, then right back at you. I only related what history records about fundamentalism. If you have some other story then you are making it up.
Here is a pretty thorough declaration of Bible inerrancy:
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition: They affirm and deny a lot of things but provide scant support for their affirmations and denials. Yes, the writers of the document do not provide the kind of support that you would desire,... They don't provide support for their affirmations that anyone would desire, not just me. In particular they provide no support for Biblical inerrancy, they just declare it.
The Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation section describes a multiplicity of ways that the inerrant Bible is errant. It calls the Bible a "human production" written from the perspective of the author. But inspired by God. They provide no support that the authors were inspired by God, nor even describe what the effects of being "inspired by God" mean, nor even that there is any such thing as "inspired by God."
They are very very clear that it is all inspired by God without overriding the writer's personality and culture etc. Repeating what you're ignoring, they called the Bible a "human production." There is no claim, let alone any support for this claim they didn't make, that their human errant qualities were removed while engaged in this "human production."
When precision was not a goal it was "no error not to have achieved it." It also says:
quote: In other words, the Bible is inerrant not by modern standards but by whatever they want to claim were the standards of nearly 2000 years ago. No, it's not about what they "want to claim." Yes, it's very much about what they "want to claim," because they have no evidence for what they're claiming. They're merely making an affirmation of what they believe while providing no support for it.
They recognize that the Bible determines its own standards,... Where does the Bible do this?
...they are not imposing standards on it,... Sure they are. They're declaring it inerrant.
But today's critics do impose modern standards on it. As commentators on the Bible have done since it's beginnings. St. Augustine criticized the Bible according to the "modern standards" of his time.
It later says that "God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture," and acknowledges "that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free." You are misreading this. No I'm not. It's a pretty clear statement that the Bible is not error-free, and this part simply states another source of error.
They clearly affirm that the original autographs ARE inerrant,... Yes they do. In the absence of evidence they affirm the impossible. So no misreading on my part there.
...but that "transmission" which means copies and translations down the centuries, are not error-free and God did not promise that they would be. We agree on this, so no misreading on my part there, either. I apparently didn't misread anything, you just like to cast accusations of misreading and confusion and so on at people. If anyone's misreading anything it's you. You're seeing perfection in a document full of errors and that has been interpreted in a multiplicity of ways, then you're declaring your interpretation right and all contrary interpretations wrong. If declaring yourself right were horses you'd have the largest herd in the world.
They do go on, however, to point out that the transmitted copies are in fact extremely reliable. Did you read any of that? Sure, but once again they made an unsupported affirmation. At least when they spoke of sources of error they were on solid ground., since we know (and they knew) that the Bible contains errors that can be seen and read.
It also says that "no translation is or can be perfect," before declaring without evidence how excellent are the English translations. After this enumeration of sources of error it then refers to "our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth." Contradictory much? Not at all. Then you are turning a blind eye to the obvious. It is clearly a contradiction to concede error, indeed to describe some of the sources of error, followed by an affirmation that the Bible is completely true.
You are simply misreading it. Again, no, I am not misreading anything. You are simply seeing what you want to see, and contriving excuses for that which you cannot accept.
Note the word "translation" in "no translation is or can be perfect." Yes, of course no translation is perfect, and that means error.
Same thing I say above: the original autographs are perfect,... You are declaring the originals perfect without any evidence, and as the Chicago Statement says, the original authors' documents were "human productions."
...while the translations and transmissions are not promised to be perfect and many small errors are found in the thousands of copies and fragments we have of all the different translations. The original books of the Bible by their various authors were imperfect when written, contained a great deal of fabrication and fabulousness, and have been imperfectly transmitted to us.
The last sentence you quote is either referring to the autographs or to the remarkable reliability of the translations we have in spite of the errors found in different copies down the centuries. I believe they were saying the latter, again, another affirmation without support.
This is our foundation. No, this is your declaration. Your foundation is the excuses you make for the errors. Whatever. It does get frustrating having to deal with someone who knows absolutely nothing... I'm sure it does get frustrating when it turns out you know absolutely nothing about evidence for Biblical inerrancy, since none exists.
...and thinks his misreadings... That would be your misreadings. You're seeing in the Bible what you want to see, not what is really there.
...are the standard even though it is clear from the context that he must be contradicting the men who wrote the document who really ought to be credited with knowing what they are saying. Why should they be credited with inerrancy, or even accuracy and truth?
Naa, Percy knows better. On one reading he knows better than all of them. What is it that you're saying that I've read only once. The Bible? If so, then when we discuss specific passages I generally end up reading them multiple times, sometimes in different translations. Concerning the Chicago Statement, it takes no time at all to review their evidence when they've presented none. Message 42:
In answering the rest of your post I want to begin by responding to your last statement since it repeats your original error: Responding once wasn't enough? You have to repeat your response?
The Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is aimed at capturing the biblical understanding of believers back to the beginning. Sure, the beginning of the 20th century. Which is a restatement of your mistaken equation of Bible inerrancy with a particular theological movement called Fundamentalism,... History is pretty much in agreement about this.
...which I hope I cleared up in my first answer to you. And which I corrected.
Biblical inerrancy is standard doctrine that goes back to the beginning according to the Chicago Statement. Yes, Article XVI, which is completely absent of evidence. St. Augustine was pretty close to the beginning, much closer than us, anyway, and he didn't think it inerrant.
It is not synonymous with the particular theological movement called Fundamentalism. I never said it was. I've merely repeated what history says, that Biblical inerrancy was simply one component of the fundamentalist movement. It came into being at the same time as the fundamentalist movement. That doesn't make it synonymous with fundamentalism. You are rebutting a silly claim, twice now, that you made up yourself.
You could say that it of course belongs to "fundamentalist" or traditional Bible-believing Christianity which is what that movement aimed to spell out in opposition to modernism and liberalism in the 19th century,... Hey, you got something right.
...but that too goes back to the beginning. And now you dive right back into error. There is no support for this claim.
I do hope this is now clear to you. You many errors are very clear.
True science is a gift from God. Then glory to God, who seems disproportionately generous in blessing atheistic scientists with the greatest insights. He gives it for the sake of the whole nation and He gives it because of our former Christian identity, and the first western scientists were serious Christians. Well, congratulations on knowing the mind of God. Narcissistic much? Since God could have blessed right-minded Bible believers like yourself with these insights as easily as atheists, why give these insights to unbelieving atheists? I'm asking you rather than anyone else because you know the mind of God so well.
...and it HAS given us longer and healthier lives, but evolutionary theory has given us absolutely nothing of use. Zip, nada. Independent of your silly assertion, you do realize, I hope, that practical utility isn't required for validity. Uh huh, well I was answering GDR's statement that we should appreciate science for what it has given us to improve our lives, and of course objecting that only the true sciences have given us anything to improve our lives, that the ToE and OE give us zip in that department. And of course I am happy to go on and affirm that they haven't even given us true knowledge of any sort, it's all a big shuck. Independent of your silly assertions, you do realize, I hope, that practical utility isn't required for validity.
As for your comments on Augustine as usual you are tiresome in your amazing ability to get everything wrong. You give me too much credit. I can't hold a candle to you.
Of course we are "rewarded according to our works." Scripture says that. It does not say we are SAVED by our works, but over and over exactly the opposite and Augustine affirms that too, which became important in Luther's theology of salvation by grace. No, I'm afraid you are wrong. St. Augustine wanted things both ways. In Chapter 18 of On Grace and Free Will he criticizes those who believe that "faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works," then goes on to argue that both faith and works are necessary for salvation.
St. Augustine has been judged insightful by countless generations.... Indeed he has. He contributed some extremely important stuff to our current theology. BUT he also WAS all over the place on some subjects,... So you keep saying but never supporting. You just toss out this random accusation without justification (something you do so often to so many) in order to question his credibility. You're the only one I've seen question the credibility of St. Augustine's science related observations, and you haven't provided an ounce of justification.
ALSO affirming stuff that is now rejected in current theology. No, it isn't that I've read that much of Augustine, but I have listened to some presentations and discussions of his work that make this point. You listened to discussions and presentations making this point, but supported by what? Did they, like you, just make the point and move on? Or did they provide support for their point? If the latter then what did they say?
I'm going with the statement on inerrancy which declares that the Bible is true on every subject it addresses,... Yes, of course you are.
These are the historical sciences that can't be proved as the hard sciences can be, because they reach back to events that can't be verified in themselves. You mean like the events recounted in the Bible, which you hold true on the flimsy grounds that you've declared them true, unlike real science that relies upon evidence, not declarations. God's inspired revelation is not subject to scientific method. Nor any method of validation, apparently. You just believe what you believe, then you build a complex structure of rationalizations around it.
Wherever there are some claims that do appear to contradict the Bible, such as the tree rings, as the Statement on Inerrancy says, we trust that they will eventually be explained in accordance with the scripture. That's just something you believe without evidence will happen one day, not something that "stands against all objections" (that's from your thread title, in case you've forgotten). The statement on Biblical Inerrancy DECLARES it against all objections. People can declare anything they like. Declaring something never made anything true.
We are not subjecting it to scientific proof, we declare it based on its internal witness to being the Word of God, and all the statements in that document follow this pattern of validation. Nobody expects YOU to accept that, but that is what it is saying to us believers. You really might try a little harder to understand what people you disagree with are actually arguing instead of imposing your own opinions on it. How is declaring something true equivalent to "stands against all objections" (again, that's from the title of your thread)? Somebody objects, and you stand against that objection by declaring yourself right and them wrong. That's not "stands against all objections." That's just obstinacy, obdurateness and irrationality. In other threads you've argued that your faith is based on evidence, but in this thread you're arguing that declaring what you believe is sufficient to rise over all objections. You have to make up your mind. I'm all for people accepting spiritual teachings on faith without evidence, but if faith requires evidence then you need to stop arguing that the fact that you've declared something true is enough.
Percy writes: GDR writes:
Just a couple of thoughts. When you read the Sermon on the Mount it is clear that Jesus corrects as erroneous parts of the OT.Faith writes:
But your theology has only stood against all objections in your own mind. Not according to my theology. It wouldn't be in my mind unless I knew it was shared with evangelicals in general. So you're claiming you're right because you claim that people who aren't here share your views? Pardon my skepticism. When evangelicals start chiming in that they agree with you then I'll believe you.
Stoning to death was the way the death penalty was executed in those days. So what is heretical is your insistence that the Scripture is wrong and that those acts are evil. You are the one calling good evil and evil good, not I. So the death penalty is good? And stoning to death as a means of carrying out the death penalty is good? The death penalty is certainly good, it is justice where applied correctly. Let the record show that the person supposedly blessed with divine grace praises the death penalty, while the spiritual but religiously bereft person thinks the death penalty bad.
Stoning was the method of the times in which the Law was given, before there was any kind of seat of government, before there were courts and sitting judges. Now you're blessing stoning without any due process?
They didn't have guns so they couldn't do an execution by firing squad. They didn't have our modern means of putting people to death in an electric chair or by other supposedly painless means. I doubt they could have constructed an effective guillotine in those days. The method of murder, even murder supposedly justified by a legal process, is not important. What's important is that it is murder.
What would you have had them do? Uh...not murder people?
And it is considered to have been an especially effective means of enacting the death penalty because it involved the entire community in the act in order to impress upon all of them the importance of the law and the dire consequences of disobeying it. It is most enlightening to discover that the most religious are also the most in favor of killing people.
Scripture isn't geocentric. It doesn't say anything clear about such things at all. That's your uninformed opinion. To quote Dr Adequate quoting the court, which you seem so quickly to have forgotten:
quote: Golly gosh, you think I'm overlooking that? Pretty much, though I don't think you're overlooking it so much as ignoring it.
No I am disagreeing with it. I don't know if they were imposing their love of Aristotle and Ptolemy on the scriptures or just misreading them, but there is nothing in the actual scripture itself that supports geocentrism. I did check out the verses referred to that supposedly support that idea and they don't. Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo doesn't reference any specific verses - what verses did you look at?
Most of my arguments are based on my own completely original observations of geological information, in most cases without referring at all to the Bible or Morris or anything except the physical information. That is readily apparent. Not to Dr. A who accused me of thinking I was defending the Bible when I was really defending Morris. It really would help if you'd consider the context before you answer. If it's so apparent to you funny it isn't to Dr. A. Anyway, my observations ARE original and the way you've dealt with them in past discussions shows an amazing inability to follow the argument on that subject as well as everything else. You've never been able to support your "original observations." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
JonF's reply in Message 149 that "Unsupported affirmations are not evidence" is all that need be said for the most part, but I'll respond anyway.
The weakness of your offered arguments are startling. Saying things along the lines of "I affirm this" or "I unequivocally believe that" or "People I think reliable believe the same thing, and they must have good reasons" is not evidence or support or even a valid argument. Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections is a baseless belief until you offer evidence or support or at least rational argumentation. You've done none of that.
Faith writes: I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong to say that, "Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times." It doesn't. At most it goes back to the latter half of the 19th century.
And i'll say again that the Fundamentalist Movement which was a reaction to nineteenthy-century Modernism/Liberalism goes back only that far but bible inerrancy is one of the "fundamentals" of the faith that they sought to affirm that does go back to the beginning. When you make statements like this I'll keep it short and just keep repeating the same thing JonF said: Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
That is what the Chicago Statement says, in Article XVI: "WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism." [This latter statement is what is implied in equating it with the Fundamentalist Movement as you are doing.] Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
Even Martin Luther argued that Bible passages must be tested to determine whether they were the true word of God, see, for example, Reformers Did Not Affirm Inerrancy. It is disputed however, and the signers of the Chicago Statement are Reformed Theologians who would know Luther's writings well. I tried to find out more about this but this computer is very slow and my eyes give out rapidly so I'm going to have to content myself with simply affirming the authoritative status of the Statement signers. I would suggest that perhaps Luther was mostly referring to the Apocrypha which were accepted by Roman Catholicism, and saying that they don't meet the tests. But that is just a guess and in any case I'm sticking with the Chicago Statement. Encountering problems that prevent you from making a valid response does not suddenly turn an empty argument into a good one, so I'll just repeat that unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
Faith writes: Yes, the writers of the document do not provide the kind of support that you would desire,... They don't provide support for their affirmations that anyone would desire, not just me. In particular they provide no support for Biblical inerrancy, they just declare it. That is what a statement does, it declares. Yes, indubitably. You're citing affirmations when you need evidence. The premise of your thread declares that Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections, but you're not even trying to overcome any objections. You need evidence but all you're offering is unsupported affirmations, and unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
The Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation section describes a multiplicity of ways that the inerrant Bible is errant. It calls the Bible a "human production" written from the perspective of the author. But inspired by God. They provide no support that the authors were inspired by God, nor even describe what the effects of being "inspired by God" mean, nor even that there is any such thing as "inspired by God." It does declare it, however. Under that title you refer to, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation the first sentence is "Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnesses authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant." Yes, we know "it does declare." That's a significant part of the problem, that all it does is declare. Why are you not getting this? You declare that you're right, I declare that you're wrong, and now it's time to move on to the evidence. But all you're offering is unsupported affirmations, and unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
Faith writes: They are very very clear that it is all inspired by God without overriding the writer's personality and culture etc. Repeating what you're ignoring, they called the Bible a "human production." There is no claim, let alone any support for this claim they didn't make, that their human errant qualities were removed while engaged in this "human production." What the CSBI says in Article VIII is "WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom he had chosen and prepared. WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities." That is, He guided their writing without overriding their own personalities. Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
When precision was not a goal it was "no error not to have achieved it." It also says:
quote: In other words, the Bible is inerrant not by modern standards but by whatever they want to claim were the standards of nearly 2000 years ago. Something like that, but I'd say "by standards they recognize in the scripture itself." Why are you quoting and responding to something I said two messages ago? Why aren't you responding to what I just said? Where are these standards that appear in scripture itself?
I'm not going to comment on your misreading of the errors of transmission... The only one misreading anything is you. Why do I have a feeling your going to comment anyway?
...except to reiterate that God does not promise that copies and translations will be error-free, only the original autographs,... Where does God make this promise about copies, translations and original autographs? Is it in the Bible full of fabulousness that was written by men? Or is it just something you're making up? Oh, pardon me, I mean "affirming". Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
...and that nevertheless the thousands of MSS of copies and translations we possess are shown by textual criticism to refer back to an inerrant original. Yet another unsupported claim.
Article X of the CSBI says "WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy." In the section Transmission and Translation the inerrancy of the original is established by the discipline or science of "textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free. Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
In other words the inspiration of the original authographs can be established by textual criticism applied to the copies. It is noted that you so affirm.
You go on and on claiming you didn't misread anything but proving that you did and I'm not going to say more about that. Of course you're not going to support your assertions. You never do. I explained how you were misreading things while you've explained nothing.
It is not synonymous with the particular theological movement called Fundamentalism. I never said it was. I've merely repeated what history says, that Biblical inerrancy was simply one component of the fundamentalist movement. It came into being at the same time as the fundamentalist movement. That doesn't make it synonymous with fundamentalism. You are rebutting a silly claim, twice now, that you made up yourself. Well but it did NOT "come into being" at that time, it was treated by the opponents of the modernist/liberal revisionism as long pre-existing that revisionism. That was the whole point of spelling out the "fundamentals," to state what had been accepted FROM THE BEGINNING as fundamental to the faith, and that includes Bible inerrancy. You did misread all this. I didn't misread it at all. It's an empty affirmation. The misreading is by you, who somehow concluded I was saying fundamentalism was synonymous with Biblical inerrancy.
As for Science I'll just say again, God blessed the West with true science among many other blessings, because of the West's adherence to Biblical Christianity. It doesn't matter whether the scientist is an atheist or a believer, the science is a gift from God to the Christian west. We're losing all that now though because of the erosion of Christianity in the west over the last century or so. You're declaring without evidence. These are just some weird ideas you happen to believe.
Your claiming that I'm personally taking credit for knowledge of God's will just shows your abysmal ignorance of the true history of western civilization, which is all I'm referring to, not something special to me personally. You explained why God is disproportionately generous in blessing atheistic scientists with the greatest insights. If this isn't your personal idea of God's view then show us where it came from. And you're ignoring the actual point. God could have blessed right-minded Bible believers like yourself with these insights as easily as atheists, so why did he give more of these insights to unbelieving atheists? Would it not have been "for the sake of whole nation" (your words) just as much had it come from a believer instead of an atheist?
No, I'm afraid you are wrong. St. Augustine wanted things both ways. In Chapter 18 of On Grace and Free Will he criticizes those who believe that "faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works," then goes on to argue that both faith and works are necessary for salvation. Yes, works that are the fruit of faith can be said to be "necessary' to salvation" because both must be evident. But because this is so often misconstrued Justification by Faith Alone is emphasized to show its absolute preeminence. I just finished quoting St. Augustine saying that's not true.
Works FOLLOW Faith and are necessary to salvation in the sense that if they don't follow then we can conclude there was no faith. I understand what you're saying, but you offer no evidence this is so. It's just something you believe. Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
ALSO affirming stuff that is now rejected in current theology. No, it isn't that I've read that much of Augustine, but I have listened to some presentations and discussions of his work that make this point. You listened to discussions and presentations making this point, but supported by what? Did they, like you, just make the point and move on? Or did they provide support for their point? If the latter then what did they say? They quoted Augustine on a variety of topics, showing that in one place he was very consistently in tune with what the later Reformers affirmed, and in other places he appeared to say something else. Yes, and where are these places where St. Augustine was inconsistent? You have the entire Internet at your fingertips, seek and ye shall find. Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
In other threads you've argued that your faith is based on evidence, but in this thread you're arguing that declaring what you believe is sufficient to rise over all objections. I could not have become a believer without what I took to be solid evidence,... The evidence of your contributions here is that almost everything you believe is without evidence. Rationalizations, misconstruals, delusion, trusting other people's claims that somebody somewhere has the evidence, sure. But actual evidence? No.
...though I'd say that it was just about all witness evidence. In other words, you believe hearsay, what someone somewhere said or was said to have said. But actual evidence? No.
I believed what many believable honest people said. I take it that you're affirming that these people were believable and honest?
And then I had some supernatural experiences of my own, and God answered my prayers and that too is evidence. And we should just trust what you say and be convinced, and then go off and evangelize for the Lord, telling people who ask for evidence that someone on the Internet told us so.
The death penalty is certainly good, it is justice where applied correctly. Let the record show that the person supposedly blessed with divine grace praises the death penalty, while the spiritual but religiously bereft person thinks the death penalty bad. Yes let the record show it, do. Okay, sure, let the record show that the religious are for death and the unreligious are for life.
Stoning was the method of the times in which the Law was given, before there was any kind of seat of government, before there were courts and sitting judges. Now you're blessing stoning without any due process? Of course there was due process. The leaders would have heard the case, Moses in the beginning, along with other elders, there would have been witnesses, two being the minimum required by the Law, there were simply no formal institutions at the time as we have now, no jail cells, etc. You just finished saying they had stoning "before there was any kind of seat of government, before there were courts and sitting judges," and now you're contradicting yourself by saying there were elders and witnesses being heard and so forth, which sure sounds like a court with sitting judges, whether you want to instead call them elders or not. Due process doesn't turn murder into something else.
The method of murder, even murder supposedly justified by a legal process, is not important. What's important is that it is murder. That is insane. The death penalty is justice, not murder. Due process doesn't turn murder into something else. You religious people sure are enthusiastic about taking lives.
And it is considered to have been an especially effective means of enacting the death penalty because it involved the entire community in the act in order to impress upon all of them the importance of the law and the dire consequences of disobeying it. It is most enlightening to discover that the most religious are also the most in favor of killing people. Rather, most intellectually astute in understanding the difference between crime and justice, and most in favor of justice and Law and protection of society against criminal influences. No one, least of all me, has said anything against having law enforcement and a criminal justice system. We're just for life, not death.
You've never been able to support your "original observations." I disagree, but I also no longer care whether you consider my arguments supported or not. In any case my geological (and biological, too) observations ARE original, which is the ONLY point I was making. Yes, I know it was the only point you were making. And you've never been able to support your "original observations." What you have been able to do is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of anything from the real world that you think contradicts your religious beliefs. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: Okay, sure, let the record show that the religious are for death and the unreligious are for life. Such a problem you have distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty. Why do you make absurd responses like this? It isn't an issue of innocence or guilt. It's an issue of life or death. To be incredibly clear this time, when considering an appropriate sentence for the guilty it is the religious who most strongly favor including consideration of the death penalty.
Seems unfortunately to be a common mental aberration these days. What's your mental aberration again?
Rather, most intellectually astute in understanding the difference between crime and justice, and most in favor of justice and Law and protection of society against criminal influences. No one, least of all me, has said anything against having law enforcement and a criminal justice system. We're just for life, not death. Gosh, I thought Due Process simply meant giving a fair hearing to the defendant's case. It promises nothing about the outcome. Who said anything about guaranteeing the verdict from a fair hearing? We're not talking about the verdict but the punishment. You're for death, we're for life. Get it straight.
Letting him live if he's found guilty of a capital offense would of course be a miscarriage of justice but that seems to be what you want, like all those others today who think murderers should not be put to death. In 20 states there is no such thing as capital offense, and it should be true for all 50 states and the federal government, too. Murder is wrong. There is no justification for committing murder.
My evidence is what legitimate authoritative Church leaders determine to be the truth. I don't think, "I'm just going to believe what they tell me," is much of an argument. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: Okay, sure, let the record show that the religious are for death and the unreligious are for life.
Such a problem you have distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty. Why do you make absurd responses like this? It isn't an issue of innocence or guilt. It's an issue of life or death. To be incredibly clear this time, when considering an appropriate sentence for the guilty it is the religious who most strongly favor including consideration of the death penalty. Maybe so, but Catholics are big on objecting to the death penalty so you might take that into account here. By "religious" I meant the religious people in this discussion, which means evangelicals. So to be more clear this time, it's evangelicals who most strongly favor including consideration of the death penalty.
In any case there's nothing absurd about pointing out that you want to spare the life of a murderer... I want to spare all lives everywhere.
...and call the death penalty murder instead,... I'm not hung up on vocabulary. Capital punishment is the taking of a human life. That is wrong.
...and I might point out further that you are all in favor of killing the innocent unborn... I'm not sure who you're referring to by "all", your love of ambiguity is showing again, but I think we "all" have a variety of views. One common view is that it is a women's right to choose what she does with her body. Speaking just for myself, as I said in Message 34 of Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion, I've never reached any conclusions about when human life begins.
...while making the murderer into a victim of murder. Like I said, I'm not hung up on vocabulary. It is still the taking of a human life, which is wrong.
Does seem to me like you have a problem distinguishing between innocence and guilt here. Does seem to me like you have a problem building valid arguments.
In 20 states there is no such thing as capital offense, and it should be true for all 50 states and the federal government, too. Murder is wrong. There is no justification for committing murder. See, there you are calling justice murder,... You repeatedly make the same point, so I can only repeat the rebuttal. I'm not hung up on vocabulary. The taking of a human life is wrong. 20 states agree, and it should be 50 and the federal government, too. A true follower of Jesus would agree, too.
...that's what's absurd, and again I'll contrast that with your willingness to kill the innocent unborn child whose only crime is existing. You already said this, forcing me to repeat my rebuttal. I believe it is a women's right to choose what she does with her body. As I said in Message 34 of Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion, I've never reached any conclusions about when human life begins.
Of course I disagree with your opinion in general: those 20 states are in the wrong, because the death penalty for murderers is justice and should remain in force. Of course you believe this, because evangelicals like guns and death and war. But a life for a life is the message of the Old Testament God, not the message of Jesus. Forgiveness and mercy is the message of Jesus. You might want to take a look at Would Jesus Support the Death Penalty?:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: The taking of an INNOCENT human life is wrong, it's murder; the execution of a murderer is just. Yes, we understand very clearly that evangelicals are a vengeful bunch. But the fact remains that the taking of a human life is wrong, no matter what that person has done.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. abe: Oh and it's a really big mistake to pit Jesus against the Old Testament since He IS the God of the Old Testament incarnate I quoted Would Jesus Support the Death Penalty? giving the tiny percentages who believe Jesus would support capital punishment. You're in a distinct minority. What's more, the Jesus and God of the Bible are fictional characters upon which Christianity built further fictions like the trinity. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)